| Literature DB >> 33981877 |
Jared O Nyang'au1,2,3, Jema H Mohamed4, Nelson Mango5, Clifton Makate2, Alex N Wangeci3.
Abstract
Many countries experience the negative impacts of climate change especially in the decline of agricultural productivity leading to decreased national and household food security. This study assessed smallholder farmers' perception of climate variability and change and their adaptation strategies in Masaba South Sub-County, Kisii County, Kenya. A multi-stage sampling technique was used to collect data from 196 smallholder farmers. Additionally, focused group discussions and key informant interviews were used. The study revealed that most farmers perceived climate changes. 88.3% of the respondents noted a decrease in rainfall, 79.1% reported poor rainfall distribution, 88.3% perceived a late onset of rainfall while 76.6% perceived an increase in temperature. The farmers' perception mirrored the actual climatic data trends for the area obtained from the meteorological department. The major climate-smart agriculture practices adopted by farmers in the area included; diversification of crops, change of planting time and crop rotation/mixed cropping. The adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices significantly correlated with the household size, monthly income, access to credit and farmers' perception of climate change. The study recommends the incorporation and prioritization of climate change in the county and government development agenda as a means of enhancing the uptake of climate-smart agricultural practices.Entities:
Keywords: Adaptation; Climate variability and change; Climate-smart agriculture; Perception
Year: 2021 PMID: 33981877 PMCID: PMC8085708 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06789
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Map showing the study area.
Figure 2Demographic and Socio-economic characteristics of smallholder farmers in Masaba South Sub-County.
Institutional characteristics of sample households.
| Characteristics | Percentage of respondents | χ2-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NO (n = 196) | YES (n = 196) | ||
| Access to extension services | 82.7 | 17.3 | 83.592∗∗∗ |
| Frequency of extension contacts | 0 | 5.1 | 203.643∗∗∗ |
| Access to credit facilities | 58.7 | 41.3 | 5.898∗∗ |
| Access to weather & climate information | 26 | 74.0 | 45.082∗∗∗ |
| Utilization of weather & climate information | 65.8 | 34.2 | 19.612∗∗∗ |
| Access to market | 3.1 | 96.9 | 172.735∗∗∗ |
| Distance to market (Km) | 2.82 ± 2.30 | ||
Note: ∗∗∗ significant at 1%, ∗∗significant at 5%, and ∗ significant at 10%.
Figure 3Farmers' perception of changes in rainfall.
Figure 4Trend of the total annual rainfall amounts received in Masaba Sub-county.
Figure 5Perception of the changes in temperature.
Figure 6Maximum and minimum temperature trends in Masaba South Sub-county.
Logit regression model for factors influencing climate change perceptions among smallholder farmers.
| Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Climate has changed | Rainfall decreased | Temperature increased | ||||
| Odds ratio | 95% CI | Odds ratio | 95% CI | Odds ratio | 95% CI | |
| Farmer is female (1 = yes) | 1.14 | [0.55,2.37] | 1.24 | [0.61,2.53] | 1.33 | [0.67,2.66] |
| Age of farmers in years | 0.96 | [0.81,1.14] | 0.88 | [0.75,1.04] | 1.00 | [0.86,1.17] |
| Age of farmer squared | 1.00 | [1.00,1.00] | 1.00 | [1.00,1.00] | 1.00 | [1.00,1.00] |
| Farmer is married (1 = yes) | 0.75 | [0.28,2.03] | 0.62 | [0.24,1.56] | 0.88 | [0.37,2.11] |
| Level of education attained is lower than secondary (1 = yes) | 0.80∗ | [0.30,2.13] | 0.60∗ | [0.23,1.56] | 0.72∗ | [0.30,1.73] |
| Level of education attained is higher than secondary (1 = yes) | 1.66∗ | [0.69,4.02] | 1.33∗ | [0.57,3.09] | 2.70∗ | [1.19,6.14] |
| Household size | 0.63 | [0.24,1.67] | 1.17 | [0.47,2.92] | 0.84 | [0.36,1.96] |
| Not a member of any social group (1 = yes) | 2.32∗ | [1.10,4.88] | 3.24∗∗ | [1.57,6.70] | 2.03∗ | [1.05,3.93] |
| Land size in acres (log transformed) | 2.17 | [0.99,4.78] | 2.10 | [0.98,4.49] | 1.74 | [0.86,3.52] |
| Access to agricultural extension (1 = yes) | 2.98 | [0.97,9.16] | 3.68∗ | [1.29,10.51] | 2.16 | [0.85,5.48] |
| Access to weather and Climate information (1 = yes) | 3.50∗∗ | [1.57,7.77] | 3.17∗∗ | [1.42,7.07] | 3.15∗∗ | [1.41,7.05] |
| Access to credit facilities (1 = yes) | 0.50 | [0.22,1.16] | 0.40∗ | [0.18,0.92] | 0.46 | [0.21,1.01] |
| Approximate monthly income in Ksh (log transformed) | 0.66∗ | [0.47,0.93] | 0.66∗ | [0.47,0.93] | 0.95 | [0.70,1.30] |
| Number of livestock owned | 1.10 | [0.98,1.23] | 1.04 | [0.99,1.09] | 1.04 | [1.00,1.08] |
| Distance to the nearest market (log transformed) | 1.84 | [0.69,4.91] | 4.37∗∗ | [1.63,11.75] | 0.99 | [0.46,2.15] |
| Worked with formal institutions in the recent past (1 = yes) | 0.62 | [0.17,2.23] | 0.86 | [0.25,2.96] | 0.24∗ | [0.07,0.83] |
| Ichuni ward | 0.67 | [0.26,1.69] | 1.22 | [0.48,3.06] | 0.65 | [0.27,1.57] |
| Gesusu Ward | 1.97 | [0.77,5.06] | 2.73∗ | [1.09,6.85] | 1.08 | [0.47,2.48] |
| 196 | 196 | 196 | ||||
Notes: ∗∗∗Significant at 1% level; ∗∗significant at 5% level; ∗significant at 10% level; Reference categories are as follows ward = Masimba, education = secondary education. Dependent variables are dummy variables measuring climate change perceptions 1(climate change in general), 2(rainfall decreased), and 3(temperature increased), In parenthesis, are 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for the odds ratios.
Figure 7Changes in the crop production patterns among smallholder farmers.
Households’ adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices.
| Climate Smart Agriculture Practice | % Non-adapters | % Adapters |
|---|---|---|
| Crop Diversification | 16.3 | 83.7 |
| Change of planting time | 20.9 | 79.1 |
| Crop rotation and mixed cropping | 22.4 | 77.6 |
| Use of manure | 31.1 | 68.9 |
| Change of crop varieties | 35.7 | 64.3 |
| Soil conservation/mulching/terraces | 43.9 | 56.1 |
| Livelihood diversification | 48 | 52 |
| Enhancing animal rearing practice | 51 | 49 |
| Increase land under farming/cultivation | 63.8 | 36.2 |
| Use of Integrated Pest Management | 75 | 25 |
| Change to Irrigation/Water harvesting | 81.6 | 18.4 |
| Reducing the land under cultivation | 88.8 | 11.2 |
| Switch from crop farming to livestock | 90.3 | 9.7 |
Correlation of the farmers’ characteristics and adoption of some CSA Practices.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Household size | 1 | -.060 | .176∗ | -.014 | .089 | -.107 | -.137 | .021 | .143∗ | -.236∗∗ | .028 | .171∗ | -.095 | .297∗∗ | .211∗∗ |
| 2 | Education level | -.060 | 1 | -.286∗∗ | .002 | .098 | -.019 | .168∗ | .085 | -.089 | .004 | -.156∗ | .092 | .047 | .205∗∗ | .114 |
| 3 | Farming experience | .176∗ | -.286∗∗ | 1 | -.027 | -.160∗ | -.071 | .031 | -.297∗∗ | .061 | .090 | .057 | -.186∗∗ | -.134 | -.190∗∗ | -.234∗∗ |
| 4 | Social group | -.014 | .002 | -.027 | 1 | .058 | .030 | .079 | .166∗ | .105 | .148∗ | .078 | .110 | .045 | -.113 | -.004 |
| 5 | Monthly income | .089 | .098 | -.160∗ | .058 | 1 | -.084 | -.202∗∗ | .214∗∗ | -.055 | -.127 | .000 | .096 | .092 | .314∗∗ | .354∗∗ |
| 6 | Agric. extension | -.107 | -.019 | -.071 | .030 | -.084 | 1 | .057 | .108 | .089 | .145∗ | -.053 | -.109 | .004 | -.158∗ | -.138 |
| 7 | Weather & climate | -.137 | .168∗ | .031 | .079 | -.202∗∗ | .057 | 1 | -.022 | -.115 | .286∗∗ | -.042 | .015 | .009 | -.147∗ | -.173∗ |
| 8 | Access to credit | .021 | .085 | -.297∗∗ | .166∗ | .214∗∗ | .108 | -.022 | 1 | .029 | -.153∗ | .090 | .228∗∗ | .279∗∗ | .251∗∗ | .429∗∗ |
| 9 | Perception in C.C | .143∗ | -.089 | .061 | .105 | -.055 | .089 | -.115 | .029 | 1 | -.084 | .046 | .135 | -.039 | .220∗∗ | .172∗ |
| 10 | crop varieties | -.236∗∗ | .004 | .090 | .148∗ | -.127 | .145∗ | .286∗∗ | -.153∗ | -.084 | 1 | .132 | -.069 | .009 | -.340∗∗ | -.359∗∗ |
| 11 | Crop diversification | .028 | -.156∗ | .057 | .078 | .000 | -.053 | -.042 | .090 | .046 | .132 | 1 | .060 | .078 | -.118 | .082 |
| 12 | Mixed cropping | .171∗ | .092 | -.186∗∗ | .110 | .096 | -.109 | .015 | .228∗∗ | .135 | -.069 | .060 | 1 | .144∗ | .299∗∗ | .264∗∗ |
| 13 | Planting time | -.095 | .047 | -.134 | .045 | .092 | .004 | .009 | .279∗∗ | -.039 | .009 | .078 | .144∗ | 1 | .061 | .127 |
| 14 | Use of Manure | .297∗∗ | .205∗∗ | -.190∗∗ | -.113 | .314∗∗ | -.158∗ | -.147∗ | .251∗∗ | .220∗∗ | -.340∗∗ | -.118 | .299∗∗ | .061 | 1 | .560∗∗ |
| 15 | Soil conservation | .211∗∗ | .114 | -.234∗∗ | -.004 | .354∗∗ | -.138 | -.173 | .429∗∗ | .172∗ | -.359 | 0.082 | .264∗∗ | .127 | .560∗∗ | 1 |
∗Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
∗∗Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).